Wedding Kit Nikon

J

JBonenikon101

Messages
57
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Everyone,

Just wanted to know your thoughts on this kit for weddings please ???

Nikon Bodies- D600 or D700 & D7000 For Back Up
Lenses:
Nikon 24 - 70mm f2.8 Or Sigma 24-70mm f2.8
Nikon 50mm F1.8
Nikon 70 - 300mm f4.5
Flash Nikon SB900

Any suggestions would be appreciated

Thank you :)
 
Would the 70-300mm be fast enough? Also, it may be worth considering swapping the 50mm for something wider in case the 24-70mm fails and you are left with nothing at the wider end.

I'd also get an SB600 as a backup flash.
 
I'd go for the Sigma 24-70mm, and use the money you save to get a 70-200mm f/2.8 Sigma as your tele. A cheap 35mm prime could be a decent addition.
 
Pablosammy said:
I'd go for the Sigma 24-70mm, and use the money you save to get a 70-200mm f/2.8 Sigma as your tele. A cheap 35mm prime could be a decent addition.
Click to expand...

Really????

The Nikon 24-70 is a much superior lens and the 70-200vr2 blows the Siggy out of the water.

Save your £'s and buy once.
 
IIRC, the Sigma has a closer minimum focus distance than the Nikkor so it may be worth having both (I know at least one wedding pro who has kept their Sigma for just that reason.) If budget allows, the Nikkor is indubitably a better lens BUT as far as VFM goes, IMO, the Sigma wins. Make sure any Sigma is a good copy though (in fact, make sure any lens, regardless of mfr. is a good copy but Sigma in particular have had reported issues). For the Nikkor pair (24-70 & 70-200 f/2.8) £2,770; Sigma pair £1,470.
 
Soda Farl said:
Really????

The Nikon 24-70 is a much superior lens and the 70-200vr2 blows the Siggy out of the water.

Save your £'s and buy once.
Click to expand...

Unless you really pixel creep you would never ever tell the difference between the Sigma 24-70 and the Nikkor. I have all sigma on a D700 and I have never ever had a anyone tell me, or I have felt that the lenses let my photography down. The only thing I would say is that the Sigma 24-70 has a 82mm thread so filters can be expensive.

Stop looking at badges and use the bloody thing!
 
Soda Farl said:
Really????

The Nikon 24-70 is a much superior lens and the 70-200vr2 blows the Siggy out of the water.

Save your £'s and buy once.
Click to expand...

:plus1:

Also 50mm f1.4 rather than f1.8 if you haven't already bought.
35mm and 24mm are also widely used, f1.4 is expensive but the 35mm f2 is quite good.
 
I agree with Tommy on this one.
If you are planning on getting into weddings as a regular thing, then you really should get the best gear available. In this case the Nikon gear is a huge leap above the Sigma.
As said, buy once, buy right.
Value for money of your equipment is not a valid consideration when you are charging, the main concern should be getting the best possible image quality for the customer. That's my opinion, and I will stand by it.
A lot of people will use 2 x bodies, 1 with the 24-70, and the other with the 70-200 on it, and it will be all they use. Something a bit wider too, depends on you, your style, and the venue.
A back up flashgun would also be a good idea.
This is just my opinion of course, others will disagree, I'm sure.
 
My advice was based on a set budget, as not everyone has unlimited funds - by all means, if you've got (a significant amount of) extra cash, go for the Nikon gear over the Sigma stuff. It is far better, but you pay for it!
 
nikoneal said:
Unless you really pixel creep you would never ever tell the difference between the Sigma 24-70 and the Nikkor. I have all sigma on a D700 and I have never ever had a anyone tell me, or I have felt that the lenses let my photography down. The only thing I would say is that the Sigma 24-70 has a 82mm thread so filters can be expensive.

Stop looking at badges and use the bloody thing!
Click to expand...

How long did you test the Nikon 24-70 for?
 
I understand the limited budget argument, but if the OP is planning on doing this seriously, then the budget has to be raised in order to give the customer the best you can.
 
GHP said:
I understand the limited budget argument, but if the OP is planning on doing this seriously, then the budget has to be raised in order to give the customer the best you can.
Click to expand...

How far does that argument apply though? Should the OP invest in £35k Hasselblad bodies and £5k lenses for the ultimate in portrait quality?

Demanding clients aren't going to hire an inexperienced photographer, and the layman wouldn't nitpick between the results from a Sigma or a Nikon lens. Even the experienced amongst us would have to use side-by-side shots to tell the difference. There are pros using CSCs at weddings. If the OP is just starting out, a slightly cheaper set-up is absolutely fine.
 
Pablosammy said:
How far does that argument apply though? Should the OP invest in £35k Hasselblad bodies and £5k lenses for the ultimate in portrait quality?

Demanding clients aren't going to hire an inexperienced photographer, and the layman wouldn't nitpick between the results from a Sigma or a Nikon lens. Even the experienced amongst us would have to use side-by-side shots to tell the difference. There are pros using CSCs at weddings. If the OP is just starting out, a slightly cheaper set-up is absolutely fine.
Click to expand...

Lets be honest here the Siggy's are not good in poor lighting there 24-70 is very soft at 2.8 and that's were these will live in church's etc..

The o.p would be better in my opinion to wait and get the right thing rather than waste money on gear he will likely need to replace later. Perhaps the o.p could save money by buying used rather than new and going for the D700 rather the D600.
 
Last edited:
A good f/1.4 prime will be indispensable at a wedding, especially in dark church interiors where even f/2.8 zooms struggle.

While I have only shot one wedding, and never plan to do one again as long as I live, I can say the 50 and 85 f/1.4's I had were life savers once we got into the church and the light levels dropped like a 10 ton weight...
 
I had the Sigma 70-200, and it was the shortest I kept any lens, ever. I bought it brand new online, from Holland. So at least I saved a little over buying it local - But, ended up selling it on as used because of the hassle involved in shipping it back plus a further wait for replacement. I didn't lose much ;) But after then buying an old Nikon 80-200 2.8, I couldn't believe the difference. This 20yr old beast had better contrast,clarity, the colours just popped so much better, the blacks seemed deeper [I thought on the siggy the blacks appeared washed out, on Jpeg or pre-processed RAW] but most of all, the 80-200 was crisp and sharp even wide open, where I found [at least my copy of]the sigma soft, as well as 'washy', at 2.8- 4. I would say the 80-200 is easily on a par optically as the 70-200 VR1 at least. Though without VR of course, and mine had no tripod collar.

Now, I wouldn't suggest the old 80-200 for weddings, it can be a little slow, but newer 2-ring versions would be good enough, or, go that step up again and get the 70-200. As said, save in the long run, buy the once.
 
A good copy of the siggy 70-200 os is nearly as good as the Nikon vr1 both lack the speed and sharpness of the vr2 though. I agree with the previous posters recommendations on the 1.4's in a church no flash allowed these will be the best option.
 
Nah, I only had the old HSM II, non OS version. Im sure that one is better alright. There will be bad copies and just bad lenses by all makes. Nothing against sigma here, I just ordered their new 35 1.4 ;)
 
Last edited:
For me the Sigma 24-70 is just a pig to focus in the dark compared to the Canon (so presumably Nikon too) zooms.

For that reason more than any other I can't recommend any 3rd party 2.8 zooms for pro's. if I can't focus, I can't deliver, it doesn't matter how sharp the lens is on paper. Or what great reviews its got.

The same goes for one of the creamiest lenses Canon makes, the 85L is just gorgeous, but it doesn't focus as accurately or fast as its much cheaper 1.8 brother. Much as I'd love an 85L I know I'd end up using the 1.8 more often.
 
Contrary to the statements above, shooting at 1.4 is not the answer for weddings. Your dof is too thin and you lose all context
 
Thank you guys for your opinions, what do you think about using a D7000 as my main body And having a D90 as my second camera which will save me some money and can go for the Nikon Lenses ???
 
JBonenikon101 said:
Thank you guys for your opinions, what do you think about using a D7000 as my main body And having a D90 as my second camera which will save me some money and can go for the Nikon Lenses ???
Click to expand...

It's going to be a tough call to make.

Maybe if you could post your budget and the gear you already own.
 
JBonenikon101 said:
Thank you guys for your opinions, what do you think about using a D7000 as my main body And having a D90 as my second camera which will save me some money and can go for the Nikon Lenses ???
Click to expand...

A D90 will be absolutely fine. D7000 is only better for video and the ability to shoot at higher ISO (although the noise difference is virtually the same, I have no idea why people say otherwise...)

What you need is controls to move fast and good image quality. The D90 has this, the extra could buy you a 50mm f1.4g for example!

I have the D7000 and had the D90. I have to say, if I didn't shoot video and utilize ISO 12800 & 25600 which only account for about 0.5% of my shots anyway... I wouldn't miss not having the D7000.

...can't think of any other feature I'd really miss...
 
Check out the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VR. It's a superb lens at a really good price....and it has VR!!
 
AndyWest said:
Check out the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VR. It's a superb lens at a really good price....and it has VR!!
Click to expand...

If I were in the ops position I'd be going down this route also.

Again, if I were in the OPs position I'd be thinking full frame with tamron 24-70 VC and probably a D90/7000 (depending on budget) and 70-200mm VR2 if possible. I'd also want a 60mm macro in my bag as well. That should cover most of the shots and would give amazing IQ at a reasonable price (when you think of how much you should spend anyway).

I don't really like the restriction of primes anyway but really dislike them in wedding scenarios.

The only thing I would be slightly worried about is having different bodies and getting confused with settings...
 
Your profile doesn't say where you are based, but if you are within driving distance, you are welcome to try Nikons range that I have for the day with me.
If I where going to do weddings pro, I would have a secondhand D3s, maybe another as second body, or the d700 as second. A nikon 24-70mm (or secondhand 28-70mm), a Nikon (vr1) 70-200mm.
I would buy all secondhand and shop around for the best deals I could find.

That is all assuming that you are setting up as a pro wedding tog. It's no different to any other business, you have to invest is equipment to do the job.get the right tools to begin with.

Just my humble opinion.

Kev.
 
Apologies for being the first...

At the risk of being 'that guy', there are no photo's of people in the OPs flickr stream, some OK stuff, but the nearest any of it gets to wedding photography is some really inappropriate schindlering.
 
Well done to Phil for the first post using a perfectly placed insertion of the term "Schindlering" !!
 
boyfalldown said:
Contrary to the statements above, shooting at 1.4 is not the answer for weddings. Your dof is too thin and you lose all context
Click to expand...

and anyway a lot of venues arent that dimly lit - they are often too dark for bog standard kit lenses etc, but I can only think of one recently that was too dark for an f2.8 lens.
 
GHP said:
Well done to Phil for the first post using a perfectly placed insertion of the term "Schindlering" !!
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm on a mission to get it into every day use by all forum members.:D
 
Phil V said:
schindlering.
Click to expand...

Is that a posh word for selective colouring :D

Does seem a hell of a venture, to go straight into wedding photography without having taken photos of people, of course they may well have done, but the flickr account would suggest otherwise.
 
mind you to be fair i've done loads weddings and there's none of those shots on my flickr either - my flickr is for personal work only

so its probably best not to jump to conclusions
 
big soft moose said:
mind you to be fair i've done loads weddings and there's none of those shots on my flickr either - my flickr is for personal work only

so its probably best not to jump to conclusions
Click to expand...

Trying not to jump to conclusions, I'm sure the OP will clear it up. Like I said, some nice stuff in his Flickr stream.
 
big soft moose said:
mind you to be fair i've done loads weddings and there's none of those shots on my flickr either - my flickr is for personal work only

so its probably best not to jump to conclusions
Click to expand...

Are any of your weddings available to view online, do you have a website? Were they paid jobs or just as a guest?
 
Phil Young said:
why is it ALWAYS with wedding photography??
Click to expand...

because we seem to be inundated with people trying to set up wedding businesses with no experience (I'm not saying the OP is one such)

if every second post was about breaking into pro glamour photography despite never having shot a model , it would be glamour threads that had the bad rep
 
big soft moose said:
because we seem to be inundated with people trying to set up wedding businesses with no experience (I'm not saying the OP is one such)

if every second post was about breaking into pro glamour photography despite never having shot a model , it would be glamour threads that had the bad rep
Click to expand...

What Pete said, and I said in many more words in the last wedding thread.
 
big soft moose said:
because we seem to be inundated with people trying to set up wedding businesses with no experience (I'm not saying the OP is one such)

if every second post was about breaking into pro glamour photography despite never having shot a model , it would be glamour threads that had the bad rep
Click to expand...

If people want to get into it then so be it.

It's a business and lersonal goal, and there are no unrealistic goals.... just unrealistic timeframes.

My point is, if someone's serious about doing something with their photography, we shouldn't be making them doubt themselves - as a helpful community we should encourage and advise.

Maybe the op won't be pro this year, perhaps his goal is or should be a 2 year plan...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top